Here's an idea: just stop punching women!

When clinical psychologist Sallee McLaren wrote an article suggesting women were partly to blame for domestic violence, I couldn't help but think (again!) that can't men just stop punching women? Julia Baird writes.

Blaming victims of domestic violence is both repugnant and idiotic.

It is also dangerous. Telling women - and men who are also victims - that they are to blame for attacks and assaults on them only perpetuates the idea that they should suffer quietly, not report it, and that if they are good girls it will stop.

In short, it could lead to death.

And yet the belief stubbornly persists that there are things women do or don't do that encourage or even force men to beat or rape them, or that simply prevent men from making a basic choice not to be brutal. For centuries we have accused women of somehow silently provoking men to attack them, by the way they are walking, how they are talking, what they are wearing, or some such.

Even suffragettes were sexually assaulted when they picketed for the vote for women: this, they were told, was their fault.

There is no data to back this up, it appears to be simply statistical guesswork. (McLaren's bio identifies her as an expert in anxiety and depression, not abuse and violence, although she says these matters come up frequently in her work.)

While stressing that morally, the perpetrator is always at fault, she argues that if women don't challenge a man's anger early in a relationship, he will come to see it as acceptable and it will worsen. First, it is 4/10 anger, then 6/10.

"Before you know it, he has reached 9/10 and he is smacking her head into the wall and calling her a "fucking c---". She continues: "While, of course, there is never any excuse for being violent towards a partner, she has nonetheless contributed 50 per cent to how this domestic violence situation came to be."

Hmmmm. How this was calculated was a mystery, and the illogic is stark. Many women do not protest due to fear of escalation - an escalation that can happen in a minute, not gradually over months. You can hardly view the women in these awful, often paralysing situations as wishing the violence to continue, or condoning it with silence.

Empowering women to leave is entirely different to blaming them for their bruises. And yet oddly enough, the more we are talking about domestic violence, the more ugly rationales for it seem to emerge.

What we are fighting against is the normalisation of violence. And what we need to do is not just expose assaults when they happen, but the diabolical excuses we make for them, and the leniency with which we respond to them. It is part of our cultural fabric. In March, the former partner of Nick Stevens, a former player for Port Adelaide Football Club, testified in court that he had threatened to kill her, slamming her head against the kitchen tiles on one occasion and a brick wall on another.

In April, Country Rugby League Player Sean Scott smashed the side of his girlfriend's head with a beer glass. He was stood down "indefinitely", which then became only three weeks. Less than a month!

Last year, ESPN host Stephen Smith suggested women try to learn as much as they could about "elements of provocation", while discussing the two-game suspension of an American football star for knocking his fiancée unconscious. He was forced to apologise and was suspended for a week. Whoopi Goldberg backed him up though, arguing a short woman who hit a tall man could not be surprised if he hit her back, if she's "the last thing he wants to deal with that day". Women needed to be taught, she said, that men do not "have this chivalry thing still with them". Right then. It's either chivalry or assault?

Author of Bad Feminist, Roxanne Gay, responded perfectly.

Smith's bullshit was galling on so many levels but for women, this is not a new message. Our job, throughout our lives is to not provoke men into beating us, raping us, cat calling us, whatever. Men, so many people would have us believe, simply cannot control themselves so it is our job, as women, to not only live our own lives but make sure men don't hurt us...

Some pundits have said that Rice's wife, then fiancée, struck him and he was simply defending himself. He has the right to defend himself but I am unclear as to when self-defense becomes knocking a woman unconscious. I am particularly unclear about how a professionally trained NFL football player who outsizes his partner significantly, cannot make a different choice.

According to the important Counting Dead Women project, 36 women have died in Australia this year as a result of violence.

Comments (215)

Comments for this story are closed.

mt_syd:

15 May 2015 10:33:19am

The idea that men should not punch women is not new.

Simply repeating it is obviously not having the desired effect. Just as obviously the issue should never be allowed to disappear, the discussion, condemnation and prosecution of violent offenders should continue because it is the right thing to do, and because that is the way to change the culture.

If you want practical steps that will immediately reduce assaults and murders then impose stricter controls on the sale and consumption of alcohol.

Alcohol is a factor in more than half of all assaults (on men and women), and homicides.

I Bogan:

15 May 2015 11:19:20am

Agreed xstephen.

further, I note that in some countries with comparable if not higher consumption of alcohol that Australia (e.g Nordic block countries) violence is not nearly as prevalent. Why? Because Nordic countries, generally speaking, have a far less violent, patriarchal (yobbo) culture. In short, Nordic men perceive a lack of self control as, well, unmanly.

Alcohol represses inhibitions and, in so doing, tends to magnify certain behaviours that speak to a person's personality. Us Australian men seem to be far more inclined to express this violently. This being the case, I think it is fair to say that Nordic men are morally stronger than us (Australian men).

Perhaps it is time to re-assess our bogan culture and leave it in the rubbish bin of the past where it belongs. Maybe it is time we manned-up a bit (or a lot as the case may be).

Nell:

15 May 2015 12:12:09pm

There are quite a few stereotypes about Nordic countries but it is fair to say that while you argue that Nordic men regard drunkenness and violence as unmanly I would argue that there are very strong feminist cultures in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Let's remember the extreme violence of Anders Brievik and his claim that feminism had destroyed manhood in Norway. He is someone who equates homicidality with manhood and he is indisputably all-Norwegian!

Regarding restrictions on alcohol we might remember that there were far greater restrictions on alcohol 50 years ago which the alcohol industry has successfuly lobbied to remove stage by stage over that time. Today they are one of the main funders of our political parties (see IPA). There is no reason to believe that restrictions would not work in exactly the same way as smoking restrictions are working - a combination of cost factors, changing social attitudes to smoking and health promotion initiatives have had an amazing effect and would do so for alcohol consumption.

However, it is only part of the story of the violence directed at women. The rest of it, from often perfectly sober men, is a sense of patriarchal entitlement to control and dominate, a lack of understanding and self-awareness about his own emotional management .These men often externalise the reasons for their behaviour "she made me do it" and in therapy begin to learn to take personal responsibility for their own behaviour rather than blame-shifting. This is really at the heart of this article. Blame-shifting. Rather than men learning to monitor their own moods, trigger-points and strategies for responding, women(and often their children) are expected to creep around trying not to upset the master. A recipe for absurd and horrible lives.

I bogan:

I generally agree with your post, however I think you need to be careful ablut using Anders Brievik as a case study. He is an exception, not the rule.

Likewise, not all Australian men embrace bogan ideology. Just most of them, much like Australian women tend, which is particularly sad.

Boganism is a disease that encourages xenophobia, self-entitlement, misogeny, anti-education, anti-science and a means of general excusing poor behaviour (e.g. blame the victim comments that are still accepted by a large group in our community, including some of our Ministers). It is a disease that goes all the way to the PM. If we want to stop violence, particularly against women, then boganism needs to go from being embraced to being vilified. It is an ugly disease born of at least two decades of prosperity that allowed stupid to grow as a badge of honour. The reality is, until this is addressed, the violence will contine.

Tator:

15 May 2015 2:55:20pm

Actually it is surprising where you find DV, quite a bit of it is actually in higher income and supposedly higher class families, it is not just the bogans slugging it out at home. Between a 25 year policing career and a wife who worked in the Family Court, I have heard most of the worst horror stories from DV and more often than not, it is the wealthier families who have some of the worst end results.

I Bogan:

What makes you think that money has anything to do with whether or not you are a bogan!? Money doesn't necessarily define your level of decency and intelligence. How very prejudice of you!!

Sure, less well off bogans may drive commodore utes, but I assure you that a large proportion of BMW X6 drivers are just as bogan! Why else would one buy such a ridiculously over engineered and expensive vehicle to drive their kids to school in whilst simultaneously speeding through school zones!

In-fact, given the prevalence of issues such as anti-immunization dis-proportionality occurring in wealthier suburbs, it would seem that boganism is more common in the upper-middle class. Such people also tend to vote liberal without bothering to even look closely at the policy because that would require engaging their intellect and challenging their established cotton wool norms. Hardly surprising then that misogyny and DV are just as common in the more expensive post codes, is it? How else is one going to express their anger when they get made redundant from their over-paid middle-management / executive job which, after all, they are entitled to because they were born to it!!

Boganism is not a function of wealth. Boganism is a choice. The fact that one chooses to be bogan is a key factor in why the whole culture of Aussie boganism is so disgusting.

reaver:

15 May 2015 4:28:29pm

Interesting that you bring up Sweden when it comes to alcohol and violence against women, Neil. Sweden has the highest rate of reported rapes in Europe with arrest and conviction statistics showing that the majority (not a disproportionate rate, the majority) of those rapes are committed by (religion redacted) men who do not drink alcohol. This is a textbook example of perfectly sober men with a sense of patriarchal entitlement to control and dominate being the primary instigators of violence against women.

Applaudanum:

15 May 2015 11:34:05am

Restricting is not prohibiting.

You can restrict by making things harder to get (opening hours, number of outlets). You can restrict, albeit indirectly, by de-normalising alcohol consumption. We don't need the ads and the sporting sponsorship bombarding us with the message that drinking is routine.

Ann:

15 May 2015 12:50:34pm

America is not the only country to ban alcohol. It works *fairly* successfully throughout the Middle East. Many of those people may still drink, but they often have to leave the country to do so or pay huge prices for black market products.

What America lacked was a society that actually wanted to give it up. Officials throughout the system still drank and the black market was huge, and home production was common.

Of course a prohibition in Australia right now would be the same. But it is not correct to suggest that a society can never ban a substance.

reaver:

15 May 2015 4:34:16pm

Ann, the Middle East is hardly a model for the rest of the world to follow when it comes to women's rights. What you write does reveal the truth, though, that when it comes to violence against women alcohol is peripheral. The Middle East is both relatively free of alcohol, but known for violence against women. It is the attitude of men in mainstream culture, not what they consume, that matters most.

Tator:

15 May 2015 2:58:31pm

from a policing point of view, take away alcohol, drugs and motor vehicles, you can cut your police services workload by around 90% plus, in the end you will have basically the mad, bad or pure evil people committing crimes once these other factors are eliminated.

JoeBloggs:

15 May 2015 10:34:25am

When ABC columnist Julia Baird wrote an article suggesting all men were partly to blame for domestic violence, I couldn't help but think (again!) that can't some women just stop generalising about men?

Caffettierra Moka:

15 May 2015 11:14:52am

Joseph, based on the excessive number of assaults and outright killings on the streets of Sydney in the last year or two I would suggest that men are responsible for all violence OUTSIDE the home too. It is a pity that the Minister for Police is not a woman as you could just pass that fact off as another 'generalisation'.

And how safe do you feel these days mate? Get that prickly scared feeling when you see a large group of loud males unload themselves from a pub on the street ahead of you? Those young blokes just hanging around the park in your suburb; make you uncomfortable when they look your way? Don't like it at night when you hear cursing and it isn't light enough to spot who, when you go to where you parked your car? Don't worry, the thousands of attacks* that leave the victim injured or even dead are just biased reporting. Yeah. Watch your back.

*BOCSAR stats for last year show about 2500-2800 violent assaults (ie non-domestic) every MONTH for NSW alone

Jash137:

15 May 2015 1:08:08pm

Women are not responsible for the most murder of babies, usually it is their partner or the children's step-father, whilst the biological fathers are often absent from the children's lives. If the biological fathers were more involved in most of those cases, and supporting their children, the abuse of their children would have been identified. It takes two to parent.

Single motherhood can be a life of grinding poverty and hardship. It is no wonder these women allow sub-standard males to become a part of their household, as even minor relief from the insecurity and fear they live with on a daily basis, whilst raising children alone, must be worth it.

And you know nothing about domestic violence if you think that women can escape it easily.

John Coochey:

15 May 2015 4:16:57pm

Actually Jash you are both wrong. A child is fifty per cent more likely to be killed by its mother as natural father. When new partners are included it is close to symetry. Please look at the actual stats in future before commenting.

Wildfire2013:

15 May 2015 2:53:13pm

Rotten response Mike. Two wrongs don't make a right for a start. The facts are there, the evidence is in, men hit and murder women and it's completely unacceptable...it's weak of men to engage in this violence and must stop...period.

Lexx:

There's not one voice in over 170 posts that's claiming violence by one person against another in a domestic setting is ok.

No-one's claiming that two wrongs make a right (and by the way the two wrongs are supposed to be related, rather than comparative).

What people (mainly men) are getting defensive about are the generalisations being bandied about here. You've just done it yourself: "men hit and murder women". I don't, and I'm a man.

The point being made by Mike is that there are other violent crimes being committed that aren't as marketable and aren't the regular hobby horse of media outlets. Where is the outrage against those? The incidence of violent assaults against men is higher than it is against women. Where is the outrage?

John Coochey:

15 May 2015 5:12:25pm

Welll I have provided peer reviewed stats on actual peer reviewed studies but they apear to have been moderated out. Let's see if this one gets through, in 1995 the Office of the Status of Women objected to female/female violence be included in the Women's Safety Survey when it was it showed tweny per cent total violence against women was by other women.

Curious party:

15 May 2015 12:10:27pm

Moka:

The objection that many of us males have to this view of men as violent thugs is because it is a stereotype. Sure, the stats that you quote are accurate, and the vast majority of assaults are committed by men. But this doesn't mean that ALL men are capable of the sort of violence that we are talking about here.

We should be talking about getting violent men to account for their actions, not getting men to do it - most of us already do!

Surely:

15 May 2015 2:08:19pm

Men are more likley to cause damage when they hit another person. Women hit people as well however it is less likely to be an issue because it causes less damage. A women slapping a man across the face is an act of violence but who would bother reporting it. Two women fighting in a nightclub are less likely to result in serious injury, unconsciousness or death and less likley to involve paramedics or the police. That doesnt make it less violent.

John Coochey:

Clicky The Robot:

Jbrizzle:

15 May 2015 1:56:15pm

Moka is spot on. I have never had a woman take a swing at me for no good reason as I walked down the street, but at least 4 guys have had a crack in my lifetime. The generalisation exists because the numbers back it up. The fact that its 'normal' to brag about a punch-on you were involved in on friday night shows that acceptance of violence is widespread in Australian men's culture. And cut the crap with the men are sidelined rubbish, just because you whingers got done over by your missus in the family court doesnt mean the cards are stacked against you in rest of the ENTIRE world. Be a man, suck it up, because unless you punch your missus this comment is clearly not direct at you!

jbrizzle:

15 May 2015 4:10:24pm

Read Moka's comment for crying out loud, Moka says that men are responsible for all violence outside the home, not ALL men are responsible! The comment is basically, if you get attacked at any time in your life, its much more likely than not to be a man that does it. Likewise, I would say that when the author of this report says "men should just stop hitting women", she probably just means the men that currently hit their partners. All you idiots out there in drum land are basically whinging "She cant say that! She is tarring me, a man, with the same brush!". Well news flash, its not about you!

Rendo:

15 May 2015 5:05:47pm

That still doesn't wash JBrizzle.

I have a close friend who, like me, was brought up on the idea that you never hit a woman, regardless of what she does. He's a big lad who would have no trouble knocking most people out if he felt like it yet he endured a nightmarish 10 year marriage to his (now ex) wife who regularly attacked him in a drunken rage, yet he never once retaliated. I've lost count of the number of times I took him to the hospital with a broken stubby in his scalp or burns from thrown pot etc. Despite numerous friends urging him to leave her, his response was always "we deserve each other". He never once reported her to the cops because he was too embarrassed.

maybe the reason that it seems all the perpetrators of domestic violence are men is because men like my friend are even less likely to report it than women are.

John Coochey:

15 May 2015 5:17:18pm

Well Jb the last case of intergender violence I personall witnessed was near the Aboriginal Embassy (sic) and it was a woman kneeling on the chest of an aboriginal man and hitting him with her fists alternatively with either fist while cursing him. I was jogging round Lake Burly Griffin at the time but, of course that was an exception !

spoon:

15 May 2015 3:52:26pm

Actually, Moka is not 'spot on'.

I've never had a woman take a swing at me either but I was assaulted at 16 by a group of guys at the direction of a woman (a jealous ex).

Blaming all men for the behaviour of a proportion of their gender does nothing to address the problem of violence and is just as unfair as the many generalisations that have been made about women over time.

And as for your 'be a man' sentiments, it's that very attitude that underpins the violent culture you lament in the rest of your post. It's normal, as you describe it, to brag about punching on because physical strength is more highly prized than emotional strength. That you suggest a man should just 'suck it up' when he laments his perhaps unjust treatment by the family court is just a case-in-point.

Maybe if things like expressing emotion and showing devotion to one's children were considered more 'manly', those things would be the 'norm' to strive for and we'd see that reduction in violence we all want.

jbrizzle:

15 May 2015 4:35:43pm

Well, you were still hit by 16 blokes, idiots who didnt think for themselves but resorted to violence. And despite your assumptions, thuggery rather than emotional strength is not my norm, its not what I equate with being a man. In my culture being a man is not about being a thug that hits people, its about self-discipline and control. Its about not showing, discomfort or anger. Its about dealing with whatever problems the world throws at you with fortitude, integrity and honesty. Don't make the assumption, that all people think that being a man is about be hard drinking, hard fighting man's man. My problem is with these small minded men here who equate feminism as an attack on men. I have no sympathy for these idiots. For every bloke actually hard done by in the family court, there are 10 bums that don't pay child support, that aren't devoted to their children, that deserve the result they got from the judge. And I know from personal experience as a man raised by a divorced father that it most certainly is not biased in favor of women in the family courts. As far as I am concerned, you get hard done by, you make the best of it, and you be the kind of devoted man noted in your comment.

Cobbler:

Agreed, and what's more the left is all over the place on these issues.

Draw a cartoon of Mohammad and the cartoonist is blamed when they are shot.

If some women 'poke the bear' to the point that they get bitten then it's 100% on the bear.

Domestic violence is abhorent, but women should be educated on risk assessment as much as men should be educated that hitting women is wrong (although I'm not sure when that message was ever actually lost). If your partner is threatening you, then leave. Empower yourself and take control. nothing will send the message to men quicker than an opposite sex that won't tollerate bad behaviour.

Ultimately, I'd like to know what the solution is? There's plenty of whinging about it, plenty of complaining that $30M in the budget isn't enough, but no actual solutions seem to be presented. I'm not confident that removing GTAV from sale is the magic bullet feminists were all hoping for..........

Curious party:

15 May 2015 12:17:37pm

Hang on, but you are just going in the opposite direction to 'the Left' then - I presume you are saying that the Charlie Hebdo people didn't act insensitively at all and were completely justified in their attacks on Islam, but then you are saying that women should shoulder some of the responsibility for DV. Get some consistency.

For the record, I think it is important for victims to look at their own behaviour to see if they have been acting in risky ways or if there are other steps they can take to reduce risk from others in the future. Every individual is responsible for their own safety.

Cobbler:

15 May 2015 3:13:11pm

Actually Curious Party/Joe Bloggs. I'm not advocating the opposite. I'm just pointing out a blatant hypocracy. This 'Blame' game is never consistent'y applied.

Charlie Hebdo were in essence 'poking the bear'. As a result, some loon shot up the place. Now I'm not saying that they deserved it, and I am a staunch supporter of religous criticism, but they ultimately took a risk that didn't pay off.

Domestic violence is no different. Women shouldn't be subjected to domestic violence, but the reality is that there's a risk currently in society. While that risk is there women should be aware that some of their actions may have consequences they don't like. If nagging your partner about something is going to make him snap then either stop nagging, or find a better partner. If you persist with nagging and then get hit then you have to 'own' some of that eventuality. even if the nagging was for something important.

Risk assessment is not a hard concept to grasp if you really try. It would easily solve this issue and not require the govenment to throw endless buckets of money at the problem as is demanded by the media atm.

JoeBloggs:

Yes, it is particularly important that women and men are provided with the tools that enable them to empower themselves so they can remove themselves from a situation where they risk violence.

But the violence is not the fault of the victim.

ps. my actual point related to the desire of certain sub demographics to unnecessarily generalise and denigrate "men", or to use a Charlie Hebdo context, that some folks unnecessarily generalise that all muhammad drawing cartoonists are islamophobes, or that all islamist can't take a joke or any criticism and don't like cartoons no matte how well drawn.

Sarah:

15 May 2015 1:34:02pm

Have to agree Cobbler, and this is the very point that the much maligned Sallee McLaren was making: if women are empowered from the start to make it clear that violence is not acceptable, there would be substantially less incidence of it. Despite what Julia mentions in this article, it is not often the case that domestic violence escalates from 1 - 10 in the first incident. It starts with a put down, then it's an insult, then a push, a punch, a thorough beating. Sallee's point was that if women are empowered to make it clear with the first put down that she will not accept that sort of behaviour, then if that behaviour continues the relationship ends quickly - hopefully before either party is hugely invested emotionally, financially and with children.

While I completely agree that it is NEVER acceptable to be abusive towards a spouse, to argue that the woman never has anything to do with any violence toward her is to completely deny the woman agency - which is presumably what we are trying to avoid. After all, women are also people.

The hard thing is that what Sallee is advocating is a wholesale reframing of what it means to be female in our society. To equip the vast majority of women with the level of empowerment we are talking about would mean:- women must not be invested in the idea of marriage as a principle goal from an early age- women must see themselves as masters (mistresses?) of their own destiny - this means they must consider that their success in life is going to come from their own actions, not by relying on a man to be the prime breadwinner- men must have a way more substantial input in the raising of children, so that society in general considers that a father is at least as responsible for his children as the mother. This would have so many ramifications that it's hard to start putting down what it means in a short blog post, but think, for example, of men regularly seeking part time employment, it being at least as likely to see discussions at school pick ups between fathers as mothers, men getting involved in parenting blogs etc. It would quite likely lead to a closing of the pay gap as well.

Ann:

Losimpson:

15 May 2015 10:43:12am

What an extraordinary article from Sallee McLaren and what a good and succinct response from Phil Bradshaw - men should stop punching women. Full stop.

I don't know where this violence comes from. I have witnessed two incidents of such violence which has enlightened me not one iota. All I can think of at the moment is that this was not the time for the Government to withdraw financial support for women's refuges. And maybe the courts need to get a whole lot tougher.

anurse:

15 May 2015 11:04:03am

You are correct to identify that not all men punch all women, however you have missed what Julia is saying. She is saying that to use a generalization and claim that women who are hit are 50% responsible is EXACTLY the same as saying ALL men are responsible for violence against women.

Of course not all men are violent, but being defensive and assuming it is about "you" just gets in the way of dealing with the real issue.

My generalization is that Drum commentators can read but can't comprehend.

Applaudanum:

15 May 2015 1:00:52pm

Does this article deal with the real issue?

Given that the vast majority of male Drum readers haven't and wouldn't hit a woman, the message to 'stop' falls on ears that have already absorbed the message. Furthermore, a violent person isn't likely to have a sudden revelation of 'oh, wow. What a great idea. I should stop hitting women'. Without positing some real solutions and strategies, the article doesn't appear to do anything at all -except for moralistic grandstanding, stating the obvious, and getting a significant minority of the readership on edge.

Male readers are taking such generalisations to be about them. We get it week in week out at the Drum. If I were to say that women can't do maths or can't navigate, I'll lay odds that I'll get a firm response pointing out that the geralisation doesn't reflect the lived experiences of the readership, and rightly so. Your 'blaming' men for their very real feelings of being impugned or maligned is rather ironic given the present topic.

Aintthat:

Ann:

15 May 2015 4:51:57pm

Well if there are so few Drum readers that beat their spouses that this article is not justified in being here, where DO you think a sizeable enough proportion of the readership are wifebeaters enough to justify this article?

Do go on and tell us which socio-economic groups you think are smacking their women around.

Maybe Applaudanum, and all the men on here, should stop taking this article so personally and see that it is of social interest.

Clicky The Robot:

OUB :

15 May 2015 1:32:36pm

Don't know about defensive but I do know how offensive it is to be insulted regularly simply because of my sex by the disgraceful slurs of many contributors to this site. If Julia doesn't mean what she says she should consider editing it before she goes into print. I'm as sympathetic on the issue as the next person but as soon as these sloppy generalisations raise their heads I am distracted enough to be discouraged from following the argument. Do you comprehend that? If you were a male nurse I imagine you would.

Surely:

15 May 2015 11:59:39am

Exaclty. No one should be hitting anyone. No one should be emotionaly abusing anyone. Violence is an issue for both sexes but men should be aware of the power imbalance. Women should not take advantage of the majority of men who will nevr hit a women and men should not take advantage of their superior strength.

Maryanne:

15 May 2015 12:47:52pm

Erin Pizzey who founded the women's refuge movement in Britain recently said, "If we have any hope of tackling the tragic effects of domestic violence we have to face the facts that women can and are also guilty of violence against their partners. To concentrate only of women as victims is to deny the fact that children are also abused by their mothers. We can no longer afford to cover up the huge scandal that has existed for the last forty years where only men have been held up as perpetrators of all violence."

She is a voice of reason in contrast to the author of this ridiculous article.

Ann:

15 May 2015 12:59:08pm

Indeed, considering some women are indeed physically violent in domestic relationships, might this not be the 50% of assaults that the first author is alluding to?

I also was shocked to see that US sports star knock his wife out cold and drag her behind him, but she did hit him first. He should have made a difference choice, knowing his size and strength, but they both took the same action.

Are we to believe that if she had been a big strong woman and her husband a slender man, she would not have struck him? She had no right to hit him just as he had no right to hit her.

Scotty A:

whogoesthere:

This author says that 'somehow the article managed to be published', why somehow ?. Should it have been censored ?. Are we so feeble we can't be exposed to different viewpoints ?.

Anyway, this topic has become strange for me, unless you indulge in hopeless idealism, you are 'victim blaming'. Sure we'd like a world where 'men just don't punch women' (or anyone I'd say), but in the real world there will always be violent people.

Violent people should be punished, and women (or men) in violent relationships should be supported by the community. But I also agree that women need to be taught how to take control of their own fate.

I give this advice to young women : get an education so you are employable, don't ever get pregnant by accident, don't even consider a bloke if he drinks or uses other drugs too much, don't ever think you can 'change' someone, don't even consider having a baby until you've lived with him for two years, keep some financial independence, at the very first hint of uncontrolled angry or controlling behavior get out of there.

Sure, these things are not guarantees, but nothing is ever guaranteed. This Utopian idea that one day every single person in the world will never be violent is a pipe dream. We are making progress, it is no longer 'just a domestic'. Men must be held to account, and women have to learn to protect themselves as well. I don't see this as 'victim blaming', just common sense. Like locking up your house when you are away, instead of lamenting when it's burgled 'why can't people just stop stealing'.

whogoesthere:

15 May 2015 12:37:23pm

me too, to my step-sons. I mentioned the girls as that's what the article is about, but yes these things apply equally. I also tell my boys not to go to 'rough' pubs and steer well clear of angry drunk strangers. More 'victim blaming' on my part.

anurse:

15 May 2015 4:39:59pm

Wouldn't it be less depressing not to be abused? Being in an abusive relationship cannot be conducive to good mental health. Pretty sure happy young men in good relationships don't want to kill themselves. If a relationship does not make life better, then my advice is leave, if you are able to do so.

Tabanus :

When a man attacks an innocent victim and beheads him while yelling out the name of his deity, we must find out what we have done to make him act this way and take steps to change our ways.

When large numbers of indigenous men beat and kill their partners (in numbers far higher than the national average) it is because of our treatment of their ancestors and we must find out what we can do to help them.

When ethnic youths harass women and beat up their defenders at Cronulla beach, it is our fault when youths respond with violence after complaints are ignored by councils and politicians not prepared to upset lobby groups.

When other ethnic gangs rape and humiliate girls who are targeted because of they are "Australian", we must be more tolerant as two generations is not enough time for them to adjust to our society's rules.

When a politician calls for a "Just Say No" policy for drugs or for teenage pregnancy, they will be ridiculed for their lack of understanding of the underlying problems and difficulties facing those facing such decisions.

But when a man hits a woman, there is no excuse, no reason, no explanation required. "Just Don't Do It" is apparently all that is necessary to solve the problem.

Why are men as a group different?

PS Do not send in posts claiming I support wife beating, am a misogynist etc etc. I am none of the above.

I happen to believe that men's aggression against women is a complex and deep-seated problem that needs a bit more thought than Ms Baird is prepared to give. She is happy to blame all men or Western society: perhaps that says more of her world view than the actual problem.

whogoesthere:

Dove:

15 May 2015 11:23:49am

Tabanus, other than your support of teenage mums, all your examples on what's meant to be the topic of domestic violence were all about non-white people and about things other than domestic violence: Arabs, the indigenous, "ethnic youths" at Cronulla (I take it you mean Lebanese?) and "other ethnic gangs" who "rape and humiliate".

Ann:

15 May 2015 2:08:18pm

Why would it shut him up? If Tabanus is in good faith saying that men should be understood, empathised with and helped just as ethnic groups and minority groups should, then he will not be too upset at someone who agrees with him mistakenly questioning his intentions. Will he?

Factsseeker:

15 May 2015 11:40:27am

Exellent comment Tabanus. A few examples of extreme cases of DV are being used to justify the demonization of half the population in this country. Anybody with even a modicum of experience with intimate partner relationships knows how controlling and intolerant some partners can be and this applies to BOTH men and women aggressors. The lack of psycho-sociol knowledge of our modern TV journalists is disturbing. It might be men today that are being demonized but it could be Chinese or Muslim migrants that could be turned on next. After all, journalists can always show pictures from Tiananman square or ISIS to demonize quite innocent groups in Australia, just like Julia is doing with men at present. It is very worrying. There seems to be no editorial oversight on the ABC.

Jerry Cornelius:

15 May 2015 11:55:14am

Tabanus, we are in agreement today. There is no justification for any man to assault any women regardless of their circumstances and background. Mens aggression towards women is indeed a complex problem that requires more thought and blaming men and society won't do a lot of good.

Public approbation and stiff treatment by the law are necessary and justified and no doubt have a mitigating effect. But I'm not convinced that increasing the public anger and severity of the laws will be sufficient to make violence against women uncommon in society. I expect these tried and true measures are least effective where domestic violence is part of an ugly mess of poverty and social dysfunction, or of some unusual fanaticism or cultural deviancy such as you describe. I think each of these situations has quite different underlaying causes and each requires a different approach if we are serious about reducing violence against women.

chalkie:

15 May 2015 1:04:34pm

Let's see if this parallel holds: instead of "There is no justification for any man to assault any women regardless of their circumstances and background" we might instead write "There is no justification for any WOman to KILL any MAN regardless of their circumstances and background" - including past history of domestic violence.

Reversal so often reveals our prejudices: be careful what implications statement might hold.

Freddie Frog:

Jash137:

15 May 2015 10:55:58am

Women's studies/gender studies needs to be taught in high schools, to boys as well as girls. This will educate the younger generations about what power differential really means. To change a cultural norm, it needs to be educated out of younger generations or it will just perpetuate down the paternal family line, creating more future male abusers and more future female victims, who see abuse as their lot.

Violent men also need to lose things, such as access to their children and their finances, to learm ramifications for their violence. Currently this isn't happening.

Bev:

15 May 2015 11:16:36am

You are joking! Gender studies and feminism are responsible for a lot of problems in our society. It needs a broom put though it to rip of the distortions it teaches out. Gender studies is more propaganda than facts.

Freddie Frog:

Tabanus :

15 May 2015 11:24:01am

So what we need to do to solve a complex problem is:

1 Have compulsory gender studies as part of education

2 Have more punishment

Having seen the success of compulsory indigenous studies at all levels of education, I have severe doubts as to the value of the first proposal. (Having had some experience of "women's/gender studies" at a tertiary level, it may actually qualify as "cruel and unusual punishment").

And we are constantly told that punishment is not a solution to social problems.

While probably attractive for some, to simply characterise the who "domestic violence" as a male/western society issue is not only nonsensical but also unhelpful.

As is now acknowledged, domestic violence is not restricted to physical violence. Psychological and emotional violence are also involved, and I would hazard a guess that the high rates of male suicide might be related to the latter.

Whatever the truth, what we need to do is learn far more about the causes and real effects of this scourge.

Unfortunately articles such as Ms Baird's just reduce any hope of this research taking place by simply blaming an easy target.

Surely:

Jash137:

15 May 2015 1:23:18pm

To men maybe. That is exactly why it is needed in schools, to show the historical, and obviously current, lack of emphasis put on issues that are important to women's lives. What men think is a 'joke', like domestic violence was once treated by police as 'just a private matter,' is not necessarily considered so by half the population. That half matters as well.

Ann:

15 May 2015 2:11:43pm

And if a huge majority of men became Men's Rights activists, would feminists thus have to stop acting like it is a joke and accept their viewpoints as valid, since it now matters to half the population.

I do think most feminist theory is right and helpful, but let's remember that numbers don't make your ideology right.

Surely:

JoeBloggs:

15 May 2015 2:21:35pm

Awesome idea Jash137.

You could run such gender studies about the historical deprivations of women and africans in the USA concurently so that Anglo Saxon males born in the 21st century can learn to properly hate themselves.

Maybe that way they will commit suicide earlier and therefore save women from having to divorce them and punnish them by depriving their children of a father by ensuring their father can no longer see them.

as you say...."What men think is a 'joke'".

ps. do they teach about the topic called "sexism" within gender studies?

sleepykarly:

I am always amused by those who talk about academics engaging in 'groupthink' or 'echo chamber' discussions.

Such comments are rarely (if ever!) made by people who have any real experience in Academia.

Believe me; nobody gets to anywhere near the top in that environment simply by repeating the words of those above them. No; they get there by 'dead man's shoes'; they have to overthrow or disprove the favoured theories of their seniors, and then present the data and argument that demonstrates their replacement theory in unquestionably better.

Sorry, but the real groupthink clubs and echo chambers are hosted by the shock-jocks and anti-intellectuals of this world; often using words and phrases like 'it is obvious' and 'surely'.

It is so much easier than actually knowing what you are talking about.

Surely:

15 May 2015 3:21:15pm

I am only referring to gender studies. Theories such as nature vs nurture seem to exagerate the importance of one over the other to fit an ideology. Maybe I dont know what I'm talking about but I find some of the proof for it very unscientific.

Wayne:

Bev:

15 May 2015 4:23:43pm

On many levels feminist "research" and "surveys" when subject to external peer review come up very short. Many of the papers advanced depend on citation of others works. If there is one glaring stand out it is the round robin of citations. Each citation tweaks the evidence which then cited and used to tweak the result and so forth until the results and conclusions bear no resemblance to the original data. What is frighting is that these people occupy advisory positions and populate committees which formulate policy for governments on child care and protection, custody, DV ,family law and social policy.

justathought:

15 May 2015 4:48:18pm

I have had some experience in academia and utterly refute your assertion. In a very few disciplines, it may have an element of truth. Perhaps in physics, maths or chemistry there may be rare examples of the phenomenon you describe. In law, medicine and engineering it quite plainly does not. In the histories and most humanities there may occasionally be a shining light who rises to the top. However, the vast mass of academics are, quite frankly, plodders, who never rise to the top of their chosen profession and cannot find any way past the group think of their cloistered environment. In a way, having never left school, they can never really grow up.

Clicky The Robot:

Jash137:

15 May 2015 1:20:26pm

Lexx, this is such a tired old chestnut. The family law system will always place the children with whom they are more dependant upon emotionally. Children attach themselves solidly to one primary carer and as this is still usually the mother, then the courts will likely allow her more time with the children. It is for their benefit, not hers. And it shouldn't be about either parent. It's about keeping the children's lives as stable as possible. If more men opted to be the stay-at-home parent, then we would see more fathers get to be the main carer after separation.

The courts are getting better however, at balancing that out as the children get older, if both parties are mature enough to put aside their differences and be civil in front of the children. And anyway, how did this discussion become about what happens in the Family Court? Are you saying Lexx that there is justification for men to be violent towards women in some situations?

Might I remind you that up until only the last decade, the same court system you mention felt it was acceptable for a husband to rape his wife.

Lexx:

15 May 2015 1:37:08pm

You may think it's a tired old chestnut but I can assure you that it is the practical outcome in the majority of cases, especially given the time-honoured practice of women and their lawyers making false claims about domestic violence in order to advance their interests. I should be interested in your opinions on the girl who cried wolf.

As to how we got onto the subject of Family Law - you were going on about power differentials and I was illustrating that it's not the one way street you might make it out to be and it's not always about physical power.

I can't see anywhere that I've suggested that there's any justification for anyone to use violence against another person (for the record I do not) but I find it telling that you continue to frame matters the context of male violence against women instead of person against person.

JoeBloggs:

For exactly how long should one party be prejudiced against due to the inappropriateness of historical legislation that didn't actually have any impact on the other party?

10 years?25 years?50 years?1,000 years?

ps. the criminalisation of marital rape in Australia occured between the 1970's - 1990's. With the criminalisation finally being completed in all states by 1991 (see R v L in the High Court of Austalia). Not 'last decade' as you suggest... but a quarter of a century ago.

Applaudanum:

15 May 2015 1:15:14pm

"To change a cultural norm, it needs to be educated out of younger generations..."

Changing cultural norms are never achieved through solely educational means. The education sector plays 'catch-up' to social norms rather than influences them. One has to change the culture before one sees the change in future adults. This means identifying where the damaging parts of a culture are and the required steps to limit those influences. This task is quite difficult, but not impossible, and is more likely to go awry if poorly thought out banning of cultural displays becomes the strategy.

DJS1:

15 May 2015 5:19:37pm

I think education is primarily the responsibility of parents, especially with regard to their character and values. As parents we are meant to instill values of respect, self-control and love into our children.. use your words not your fists etc,.. Also modelling good social behaviour generally, responsible drinking etc, ..

Lulu:

15 May 2015 6:21:56pm

Jash, you don't seem to have seen the damage gender studies has done, have you? We have entire groups of people, mainly students, coming out of university with extremist ideas having been told they can be openly sexist and racist using the justification of wrong dictionary definitions. A university diversity officer in the UK is in the spotlight right now for denying their own ability to be racist and sexist against others after they denied people from a meeting based off their gender and skin colour.

Domestic violence is primarily about power over another. Those that want to abuse their partner or family will do it regardless of how much you tell them not to. Preventing it through other means is the best way to go rather than trying to preach to deaf ears.

mike j:

Freddie Frog:

The idea that women should somehow "train" men not to be violent is repugnant and demeaning to both men and women.

But the idea that victims of violence don't often play a part in their own victimisation is also completely wrong.

There is a extreme minority of humans who do not follow society's rules and will not be taught that the use of violence is always wrong. No matter what type of education programs you institute these people will always exist.

Thus it is extremely important for individuals to take care of themselves and try to avoid befriending or becoming romantically involved with people like this. Of course it's not going to be your fault if you become the victim of their violence but to claim you played no part in it is to deny reality.

The standard you accept is the standard you will get. Too many people are willing to accept violence from their partners because "it was a once off", "they didn't mean it", "they really love me", "they're usually so nice". etc etc.

Excusing this type of violence and behaviour doesn't make it your fault but it does make you responsible for the easily forseeable consequences of your decisions.

Clicky The Robot:

15 May 2015 11:01:21am

I read the same article in the Telegraph the other day. The gist of it was that the author felt girls and boys were socialised differently with boys being taught self reliance and self confidence and girls being taught to be passive and avoid risks. She recommended girls also be taught self reliance, to speak up for themselves, and to be aggressive about it if warranted - like boys.

Now I won't argue whether this is actually the case or not, though it seems plausible, but I will say I don't see how it is in any way bad advice.

That Baird and others go straight to howl mode is not surprising. " Men could stop punching women... isn't this obvious? This makes women out to be completely passive in three ways - that they can't fend for themselves at all, that only men are violent (rather than humans), and that women never instigate or initiate violence.

"What we are fighting against is the normalisation of violence." This was exactly McLaren's point. She argued that by saying and doing nothing, women contribute to this normalisation.

"It is important to flush out, dissect, and then discredit arguments like McLaren's" Yet Baird has done none of that, bar skipping straight to the "discredit" step. In fact her statement indicates the whole purpose of 'dissecting' an argument with which you disagree is to kill it.

Throwing out DV stats, and quoting other people who agree with you, does nothing to address McLaren's argument. As it is McLaren's argument stands unchallenged and Ms Baird has wasted our time.

GJA:

Applaudanum:

15 May 2015 5:21:06pm

The problems of criminal vs civil action aside, I would extend the financial commitment to include compensation to the state for their portion (as a percentage) of the overall costs in administering and dealing with domestic violence in any one year.

H Wolf:

15 May 2015 11:06:29am

If the next time an AFL or NFL star assaults another player on the field, the police interrupt the game and take him away and he receives a lengthy ban (after serving his jail sentence) that might be a sign we are trying to change our violent culture. The thugs on the field are admired by our kids and they teach them that thumping someone who annoys us is ok.

Ann:

15 May 2015 1:15:00pm

Precisely... how can we have manly men who spend all their time essentially fighting each other for control of a ball as our role models, and then be surprised when our young men are willing to fight people?

Not that there are any perfect role models, and of course even men who aren't in physical fields commit spouse abuse. But to hold the male warrior-type in high ideal and then be surprised young men are willing to punch people is just silly.

Sean:

15 May 2015 11:06:45am

What a trite and simplistic argument!

Firstly this woman attacks someone elses credentials for having an unsupported view on domestic violence (a qualified psychiatrist no less), but all that this 'journalist' has to offer is the men bad/women good cliche.

I also find that in the broader discussion there is lacking of an understanding of the violence that some women in the various ethnic communities are subject too (our most multicultural suburbs have the highest DV and murder rates in the nation) as well on Aboriginal communities. Why isnt this aspect being addressed, instead of continually focusing on what footballers do or dont do?

Unless, as I suspect, its just all to suit the leftist feminist anti white male rhetoric that seems to pass for informed comment these days.

Peter:

15 May 2015 12:35:49pm

100% correct, all advertising is aimed at white educated males when, in absolute terms, aboriginal DV is the main problem. The actual statistics show that white male DV is not simply the lowest incidence but is in any event reducing year on year.

Aven:

15 May 2015 1:59:32pm

@Peter: "The actual statistics show that white male DV is not simply the lowest incidence but is in any event reducing year on year" - The statistics are categorised according to ethnicity/skin colour??? I find that difficult to believe, can you please provide a link or title of the source?

Wayne:

15 May 2015 11:07:05am

As a non-violent man, who does not punch anybody. I can tell you that I've reached the point where my shutters slam shut every time this problem is couched in terms of only men punch and only women or children are victims. I'm tired of being blamed for this when I have nothing to do with the problem.

While I'm perfectly willing to say that the majority of domestic violence is man against woman, assuming that is all that happens ignores the significant number of men who are beaten with saucepans, attacked with knives etc.

Boys are usually taught from an early age not to punch girls. I really want this discussion recalibrated along the lines that violence to solve problems is wrong no matter who does it, and that people who punch to solve "problems" have a serious socialisation problem.

mike j:

Across the spectrum of humanity, there are many women who are bigger, stronger and more dangerous than many men. If women want immunity based on their genitals, then that's incredibly myopic sexism and entitlement. If women want immunity based on differential physical strength, then a far more sensible and inclusive rule is: "don't him people weaker than you".

Of course, that would defeat the whole point of hitting people. Only hitting people stronger than you would be masochistic, and most aggressors are cowards who only start fights they think they will win. So an even better rule would be: "don't hit anyone".

Jash137:

15 May 2015 1:41:00pm

Mike J, whilst your argument is reasonable, that there are violent women out there, which group of perpetrators do you think it most pertinent that we focus on, considering the number of deaths so far this year?

mike j:

15 May 2015 2:18:43pm

Since when did 'the number of deaths so far this year' become a pivotal consideration? Sounds like you're jumping on a statistical anomaly to sell your female victim narrative. That's not very ethical, Jash.

I don't understand why we need to 'focus on' one particular group of perps when the criminal behaviour is largely bi-directional. Women only latch onto the gender distinction because of their own sexism and need to identify as victims.

People with tattoos are far more prone to violence than those without. Why don't we 'focus on' that, instead?

Fred:

15 May 2015 11:15:32am

Interesting but rather shallow article.A few months ago one of my staff was walking home minding his own business at the end of an evening shift when he was set on by a considerable gang of young women who were in a park smoking, drinking and certainly using drugs. He would not strike back to defend himself as he, like me, found the possibility of striking a woman repugnant.He ended up in hospital.I understand well why he did not react but I would ask the author here how she would feel if he had defended himself and punched back?He had not been drinking and did not interact with the girls until they attacked him.This scenario is not uncommon in late night hospitality precincts. I would have thought a better theme for this article might have been that violence perpetrated against any individual, male or female, was always wrong

Ann:

Fred:

15 May 2015 5:46:54pm

Well if you want an example closer to home, my aunt was a big Scots girl married to a little Irishman. She used to trash him in the 50,s and 60,s when he played up. Nearly killed him one time.Now I cannot condone her actions either so I say again any violence including bullying which is rife in Aussie workplaces is to be deplored regardless of the gender of the instigator

Factsseeker:

15 May 2015 11:18:19am

Oh Julia, enough of this stereotyping. Domestic violence in Australia is multi-layered and much more widespread. Only a very, very, very tiny proportion of the DV lands up as homicide. By far most of the DV is emotional cruelty and humiliation. Family violence researchers all around the world know that there are aggressive people and non-aggressive people. Both men and women are equally aggressive. Physically and emotionally. Living with an aggressive or cruel partner is hell for a man or a woman. Surveys show that male victims of DV under-report because in our macho society, men who are seen to be weak are even further humiliated by the police, justice system and by society in general. Australia also has the highest rate of workplace bullying in the industrial world. Both male and females bully at similar rates in the workplace. Australian society tolerates violence and verbal cruelty to an extreme extent. Until Australian social policy makers and journalists study a bit more relevant psychology so that they can better understand human aggression and violence, DV will continue no matter how many extra police are going to be employed and no matter how many men are locked up in our already overcrowded prisons. Using the stereotype of a big male bashing a small weak women is not what DV is about in this country. It is all about intimate partner cruelty and emotional abuse and both partners are guilty at similar rates. Stop the denial and the stereotyping. Instead, genuinely work at ending all intimate partner violence in this country by changing the silly macho culture.

Alistair Kerr:

Andrea:

15 May 2015 11:22:30am

I've read through Sallee McLaren's article, and this one as well, and I have 3 comments to make.

1) I think Sallee McLaren has been harshly dealt with in this. I think the '50/50' comment is poorly worded, but there has been too much focus on that, and not enough on the broad thrust of her argument, which is urging women to take action BEFORE their partner gets out of control. How is that a bad thing?I'm all for strategies that empower women to stand up for themselves and not allow themselves to be victimized or pushed around by their spouse/partner.

2) Nobody here - Sallee McLaren included - is saying that domestic violence is acceptable in any situation. The responsibility for the violence always rests with the perpetrator. Of course men should stop punching women, that goes without saying. The point that is being made in the article is that women should not think themselves powerless in that situation, and they can attempt some strategies to prevent it from getting to that stage.

3) I think the 'statistical guesswork' comment is unreasonable and unnecessary. McLaren may not be the 'expert' in domestic violence that you may wish for Julia (I'm wondering what qualifications you need to be an expert in that field). But she is a clinical psychologist who - by her own admission - has had frequent experience with this type of work. So I think questioning her credentials and experience is unfair. I think she knows what she is talking about.

Frankly I think there has been the typical over-reaction to some informed comment from someone who actually does know what they are talking about, and comes at it from a different point of view. That's called free speech. Its part of the debate and we should allow it. And reacting with hyperbole does not help. Domestic violence is repugnant, at any level. And med should certainly stop hitting women. But women should not think themselves powerless in this. And we should talk about it.

Bev:

15 May 2015 12:04:30pm

Her sin was to go outside the standard feminist agenda and dialog.

I to think her article was badly worded. What I think she was alluding to is the fact that a great many (over 200) studies attribute 50% of DV to what is called mutual warfare. If this warfare ends in physical fighting very often the woman will come off second best. Much of this warfare is not physical but verbal and emotional where women in a majority of cases (56%) initiate the argument. I believe this is what she meant to say. By BOTH parties learning to communicate better and undergoing counseling (where it is not physical) this type of DV can be lessened or eliminated as been shown in pilots overseas. Our punitive approach which has only one solution doesn't work in a great many situations.

Alistair Kerr:

Gordon:

Ann:

Indeed, it seems the author likes us giving advice and options and empowerment to women in abusive situations, but then if the woman doesn't use those, any further abuse is still not her fault.

And that's true, it's not her fault. But she has made bad choices that have led part of the way to that outcome.

It's like if a guy gets smashed and then wanders the city alone at 3am and gets mugged. Is it his fault he got mugged? No, that was the criminal's. But did he make bad choices that led to it being a possibility? Yes.

Of course sitting at home sober doesn't mean you will never get robbed and beaten up either, but it makes your risk of it happening incredibly lower.

People of all genders and age groups need to be educated on wisdom, consequences and unacceptable behaviour.

foxlike:

Just a word to all those blokes (and misguided women) who feel that have to leap in and defend violent, rapist, and murdering men when women are the victims.

The idea that half of dv is women assaulting men is a laugh. Thirty six women have been murdered in Australia this year alone. How many men have been murdered by their wives? Are you counting?

If 50% of dv is men being assaulted by their wives, to reverse the popular woman-blaming argument why don't the abused men just leave? Generally speaking men have a job, their own income, a vehicle, and apparently endless sympathy from men (and women) across the nation who would be willing to put them up and help them rebuild their lives.

I have never heard of any man murdered by his wife because he attempted to leave an abusive relationship.

phil:

15 May 2015 12:49:24pm

'Thirty six women have been murdered in Australia this year alone. How many men have been murdered by their wives? Are you counting?'

if we go by current trends its about 1/3, or about 18 The White Ribbon organisation freely gives out the link to murder rates in Australia, and its broken up into many categories. They had the murders done by a partner, and 2/3 were women being killed by their partner, and 1/3 were the men being killed by their partner. So if 36 women where killed by their partner, then its a total count of 54 people (2/4 of 54 is 36 btw). Which gives 18 men.

But I believe you are comparing applies and oranges in your statement.

''Thirty six women have been murdered in Australia this year alone - so why not ask how many men have been murdered in the same period ?

Instead, you add 'by their 'wives when looking at murders of men'.

Maybe you can give the official link to confirm that " 36 women have been murdered by their husbands in Australia this year'"

anurse:

The thing is, men who rape are a tiny minority of all men. Men who bash their wives are in the minority. We all know this to be true and saying this will not raise the ire of anyone.

But the majority of victims are women and stating this fact, for some odd reason that I do not understand, causes angst and offence to lots of men who would never be violent to women.

The fact that the majority of victims are women does not make the majority of men perpetrators and any man who feels he is being attacked because he happens to be the same gender as most of the perpetrators, needs to repeat after me-

"I am not being victimized when someone mentions that a minority of men are perpetrators and the majority of victims are women".

All the same, telling victims to not be victims is about as helpful as telling perpetrators not to be perpetrators-which is the message I took from Julia's article.

mt_syd:

unfortunately the author of the article proposes no solution other than to tell men to stop punching women

if women are to be empowered then they need to know the things they can do to reduce their chances of becoming victims. The psychologist attacked in this article was doing exactly that. We can disagree with her assertion that 50% of the blame rests with the woman. But the fact is that some women will find themselves in relationships with men who have violent tendencies.

What is a women to do in that situation?

One solution, as you have pointed out, is to leave. That is not the best option, or the option of choice for many women.

So what can or should a woman do?

There are obviously things she can do that will make the situation worse. Some women do these kinds of things because they dont know any better, or because they are unbalanced or immature themselves.

There are also often things a woman can do to reduce her chances of becoming a victim.

Simply blaming the offender does not provide any option that empowers women, and has little effect on the incidence of violence.

Zing:

"I have never heard of any man murdered by his wife because he attempted to leave an abusive relationship."

I've studied murder cases and have read a couple.

I've also seen cases where an abusive or unstable female ended up trying to murder someone for associating with their ex-partner. Natalie Dimitrovska springs to mind.

"why don't the abused men just leave?"

Because she'll get 50-80% of his assets in the subsequent divorce. If he's really unlucky, she'll also get his house, his future income and his children.

For most men, leaving an abusive relationship is worse than staying simply because of the way the law punishes men for divorcing their partner. If the wife is malicious or unstable, it only makes things more complicated.

Wayne:

Steven:

15 May 2015 12:17:09pm

How about no punching. I've taught three sons that you don't punch anybody unless they are coming at you. Defend yourself from physical assault, but that is the only circumstance in which you hit somebody. But basically, don't resort to violence, don't hit anybody.

mt_syd:

anurse:

15 May 2015 1:49:35pm

No it would not be OK, understandable to hit back but not OK.

I have been punched and hit and attacked at work. It is not ok that this has happened to me and it is not ok if I hit back. In fact, I'd loose my job and probably be de-registered if I hit a patient (self-defence is different, but so far no-one has tried to kill me).

Years ago I worked at a hospital where some nurses had a deplorable attitude towards some patients and so I sat on a working party with patients and other staff. I was chosen by the patient representatives because I was one of the "good" nurses.

The patients used to go on about the bad attitude from some nurses and then said to me that I was part of the problem. Me? I was one of the good guys, but as they pointed out to me, if I did not actively support patient rights, and unless I actively spoke out against abuses of power, then I was a silent witness to patient mistreatment. The patients were right, only we nurses had the power to change the attitude of other nurses.

That (psychiatric) hospital actually underwent an amazing change of culture, where patients were treated with respect instead of being treated like 2nd class citizens. What it took was for the "good" staff to champion the rights of the patients. It was not easy, because nurses, like everyone, herd together and tend to close ranks when threatened.

If you are not part of the solution you are not just part of the problem, you are the problem.

Clicky The Robot:

15 May 2015 1:19:29pm

"But basically, don't resort to violence, don't hit anybody"

The lesson I taught my daughters was that violence is a tool, a specialty tool and not usually the right one for the situation as it tends to cause even more problems. Violence is neither right or wrong, it is a poor choice in most circumstances and the correct one in a few. Ask any cop.

Observer:

15 May 2015 12:17:26pm

I consider it a normal human response to be violent if attacked or sufficiently offended. Civilization of society has modified that, but only for some. The base instict is always there. Some control it, some don't. Real, mutual Love is the only cure, apparently. Don't accept anything less.

Applaudanum:

Noel Conway:

15 May 2015 12:28:18pm

We should indeed stop punching women, We should stop slapping them, clubbing them, knifing them and shooting them. What is happening in Australia at the moment with a woman dieing every second day from intimate partner violence is a tragedy and a shame.

There is something deep and personal about intimate partner violence that is not like other violence. For one thing, it is gendered. For another, it is historical. Women were once considered chattels of men, and in many ways a vast sway of men still consider women as chattels. Women were considered by the Church not to have souls, they were the true form of wickedness int he world, to such an extent that we would burn women as witches for no other reason than that they were women.

Not a lot has changed. Men still treat women in terrible ways. The sexualisation of women in the media and in Hollywood, the dehumanising of women in pornography and the sex industry, the marginalisation of women in the workplace, the gendered roles for women, all contribute to women being seen as second rate citizens and fair game for predatory men.

We need to get a Minister for Women who does not think virginity is the greatest gift a woman can give to a man. We need a Royal Commission into Domestic Violence and Intimate Partner Violence. We need an education campaign and an advertising campaign that confronts these issues head on, and is not afraid to throw punches. We need this to be talked about around the dinner table by teenagers who are going to be front and centre of changing this form of behaviour. And we need government investment in women's crisis centres, women's support centres, and women's refuges, so that women have somewhere to go to that provides a safe environment when their lives are in danger.

The Government under Tony Abbott has cut money to refuges and crisis centres. We need to turn that around, but we need a great deal more if this scourge on our national identity is to be curbed.

Noel Conway:

Alistair Kerr:

15 May 2015 3:09:48pm

It's been 36 deaths total of women. Not just DV related let alone Intimate Partner related but total. That's 1 every 3.75 days for total female homicides. The average from the last study done was 1 every 4.2 days. The average for men is 1 every 2.0 days.

At least try to get the numbers right. It weakens your argument to use incorrect figures or to willfully misrepresent them.

Little Miti:

Curious party:

15 May 2015 12:32:40pm

I tend to suspect that the reason why comments like Smith's and Goldberg's get attacked because it would mean that women have to take action to try to fix the problem rather than just trying to shame men into doing it. Its interesting that this sort of political action is very much in keeping with very stereotypical gender roles that have been around for centuries - men are the ones that have influence over the public sphere, women have influence over the men who have that influence.

As has been said by many other respondants here - examining the pattern of escalation in interactions will give us more information about steps women can take to protect themselves. And in the end, every person out there has to protect themselves.

"Our job, throughout our lives is to not provoke men into beating us"

This quote is kind of indicative here. We non-violent men have to do exactly that. We have to handle potentially violent interactions with care to avoid being attacked by someone with less self control than us. We do have the advantage (often) of physique as a deterrant, but then again we also don't have the advantage of their being specific cultural rules in the less educated classes of non-violence towards us.

Violence is part of the world. Standing there and saying it shouldn't be isn't going to change it. Looking at what contributes to the escalation of violence (and heres a shocker for you - often women do directly contribute to this!) and having both sides seek different outcomes is what is required. Men need help from women to stop being so angry and violent.

KateKnox:

Well written article.The arguments and facts, clearly written and also gave even weight to men.

It was nice to read an article where the blame is clearly on agressive men and did not blame all men, which is good, hence I read it to be fair.

Plus I am aware of men being victims of violence, but my belief is if these men support the women of saying violence is bad, then naturally there will be a point where their own situation will also be better.

Lastly, I just feel sick reading so many of the above comments, people (men) above please feel sympathy for the victims of domestic violence and stop rowing your own boat of pity.

Mollybendium:

15 May 2015 12:42:12pm

I believe this could have been framed in a less divisive way to enable better uptake of the message. Something along the lines of "People should stop punching other people. While violence by men against women is more prevalent than by women against men, everyone needs to understand the harm caused by violence against others."Then the author can ramble on about whether or not they think that people should learn techniques to minimise violence or simply rely upon their right to a safe and stress free existence in modern utopia.

OUB :

StBob:

15 May 2015 12:45:19pm

"Men should stop punching women".

Wow that was quick. I went outside this morning and saw no men punching women. I am sure there is still a small number of men punching women but the main crisis of all men punching women, as implied by "men should stop punching women" seems to have passed.

Nev in Esk:

15 May 2015 12:50:42pm

Domestic violence is incorrectly name. Call for what it really is. Domestic Terrorism. Any woman who is not terrified of a physical bashing is telling lies. Any man who is not terrified of a mental bashing from his spouse is also telling lies. Add the word terrorism to its name and Abbott will provide additional funds immediately.

whogoesthere:

15 May 2015 1:32:35pm

'Any woman who is not terrified of a physical bashing is telling lies. Any man who is not terrified of a mental bashing from his spouse is also telling lies.'

I hope you don't mean that literally. I am not terrified my partner might bash me, I'm more likely to get kidnapped by aliens. And he is not terrified of me. We are not unique. Please don't make the mistake of thinking successful, loving, trusting, mutually beneficial relationships are impossible. Or that relationships that don't succeed will end in violence and abuse. It's just not true.

Gordon:

Blaming the victim is bad. So is rushing to squash someone whose obvious purpose was NOT to do that but to empower potential victims with a prevention strategy before the violence becomes entrenched.

Maybe the strategy is fallible : if so say so & why. Maybe the it needed better wording - ok - nobody's perfect.

But could we please engage with the idea and not its departure from some correct line - to the point where even (shock!) allowing it to be printed in the sacred pages of the Age is itself questioned.

We accept harm minimisation as one of several responses to social ills where the perpetrators personal responsibility is a factor: drugs being only the most obvious example. We develop social responses to many problems that go beyond "stop doing it", and which ask the direct or indirect victims to engage with them. Why is this different?

Budgie Smuggler:

15 May 2015 1:11:26pm

There's 2 problems here:

(1) The drug alcohol

(2) The inbuilt, innate, biological drive for men to be violent

Neither of these serious problems can be solved.

No matter what is done, society will NEVER reject the drug alcohol. Our society as a whole is so brainwashed and conditioned, that it unreservedly demands at least one brain altering recreational drug, alcohol, be legally available to all adults (whilst at the same time vilifying other mind altering recreational drugs as evil). Excuse, after excuse, after excuse, after excuse is used to justify use of the drug alcohol.

Also, no matter what is done, the inbuilt, innate, biological drive within men to be physically violent will also NEVER be rejected by society. Why? Because we need *VIOLENCE* to stop invaders, stop criminals, to threaten the baddies etc etc. We are such a primitive species we know of no other effective way to stop the baddies other than assaulting them, threatening them, locking them up etc etc ...... if you see a man trying to stab your wife to death what do you do? Do you say "kind sir will you please stop, pretty please?", or do you pick up the nearest weapon and clobber him? THAT'S how we protect ourselves against serious, immediate, violent threat ... via VIOLENCE. We are not advanced enough as a species to know of any other way. Therefore violence is ENCOURAGED. Have you looked at an AFL match? These men spend an entire afternoon punching, shoving, yelling at each other, assaulting, pushing, intimidating, hitting other men ...... and this is seen as manly, desirable, to be admired etc etc. Pathetic.

As long as society has men and alcohol, we will always have serious violence issues. There is No final solution.

Isla:

15 May 2015 1:11:36pm

Homo sapiens have a choice. We can be better, the same or worse than any other animal in our universe. We can be, of course, violent or kind, disinterested or interested in how others fare, dispassionate or passionate, ignorant or informed.

The 'now look what you've made me do' attitude is an excuseto indulge in letting one's feelings rip. The reasons are manifold - the cause half-mast. Go on, have the heart to think. Mostly brains, rather than brawn, could make for tenable tomorrows.

Living in a cloud castle:

15 May 2015 1:12:22pm

Domestic violence is always unacceptable.

This is why I find the apparent criticism of Whoopi Goldberg's remarks offensive. In that scenario, the women hits the man. The man hits her back. The women in this case is the perpetrator. Provided it is proportionate, hitting her back is indeed reasonable, and in all fairness the woman is completely to blame for the violence and not in a position to complain if hit back.

The real lesson for us all, in any situation, is that to resort to violence is never the way to resolve an argument. Man on woman, man on man, women on man, it is all equally unacceptable. However, we also have a right to self defence.

Gabrielle:

15 May 2015 1:14:50pm

I have often wondered why men, who for the most part consider themselves and are considered superior to women, a condition supported by all cultures in one way or another, suddenly find themselves unable to utilize the faculty of choice. Apparently alcohol is the reason that many lose control...interesting when you consider the large number of women and men who drink and don't bash the crap out of their partner or kill them in a violent rage. Could gender socialization be the problem?

gbe:

15 May 2015 3:46:06pm

You are wondering why men, for the most part consider themselves and are considered superior to women.

A very general statement indeed regarding Australian born men yet closer to the truth when considering some overbearing religions that are becoming more prevalent in Australia as a direct result of country shopping.

My wife runs a very tight ship and we all do as we are told and that includes the pets.

G.A.R.T.H.:

15 May 2015 1:28:32pm

As long as our reading wants and musts favour, overwhelmingly,what men have written - their experiences, research, findings, opinions, descriptions, insights and outlook - we will continue to live in what is known as 'a man's world'. The masculinity in their writings persists, even if.

My bookshelf is grinding under the weight of books written by men,until I began taking note, and began to purchase, tune in, what women have begun to voice. Still, thus far and overwhelmingly so, the voice of men in our society continues to dominate. Poweris seldom conducive to good thinking.

Orion:

15 May 2015 1:54:06pm

Children do not read much before year 1-2 at school, and many childen's books are written by women. Whose voice do they hear before that GARTH? Who raises the young children, who teaches them? Mostly women, actually. I don't think this gender blame game is in the slightest helpful. Lots of heat, little light.

Cathy:

15 May 2015 1:30:53pm

I understand what Sallee McLaren is trying to say, but I don't agree with how she has posed her argument as a 50/50 responsibility. To everyone making comments saying "men should just stop hitting women", this is what Sallee McLaren is trying to tell you. It is not so straightforward. We live in a culture that allows this behaviour to develop. Boys and girls are socialised differently and valued differently. Until we can make the cultural shift to value girls and boys equally, women will continue to be subjected to the behaviour McLaren has described. And on the point of teaching boys to respect women and girls as one comment suggests, how about we teach our children to first respect themselves and then their fellow person. Don't teach boys that girls deserve 'special' respect, that leads to women being viewed as objects to be owned and controlled.

PCROSBY:

15 May 2015 1:40:51pm

Would you believe that I get angry too? Sometimes so that only 'drawing blood' becalms me. When I wonder why I could not have just walked away from a situation that faces me adversely. For my sake as well as for the other person's sake. And our families.

Headscratcher:

Clicky The Robot:

15 May 2015 5:30:12pm

Are men who punch other men still men in your mother's opinion? If so then she must feel women deserve special status, which is fine, but it would require conceding men and women should not be treated equally in society.

MaleVictim:

15 May 2015 2:04:44pm

I love the sentiment - I deeply do, but the message about 'violence against WOMEN' needs to end.I am sorry, but women are NOT the only victims of domestic violence and as a MALE who has been the victim of EMOTIONAL and PHYSICAL abuse at the literal hands of a WOMAN, I promise you this is not a problem that only occurs to women.It is this sentiment that only men abuse women that prevents thousands of men coming forward.I beg of you, the responsible media, when creating articles on DV to make this a gender neutral issue.It is painful enough to have been through it, but to know that no-one gives a rat's ar** because I am a male just makes it that much worse.

Colmery:

15 May 2015 2:18:46pm

The argument against violence is weakened by manipulative distortion like the following: "It is also dangerous. Telling women - and men who are also victims - that they are to blame for attacks and assaults on them only perpetuates the idea that they should suffer quietly, not report it, and that if they are good girls it will stop."

Dropping the word "partly" and introducing the supposition that acknowledging the myriad complexity of the problem will "perpetuate" a self-evidently absurd construction that the silence of victims is encouraged, is hype that insults our intelligence and helps nobody.

gaius:

Wayne:

15 May 2015 4:19:46pm

I do not feel marginalised or disenfranchised. I do feel diillusioned by a science denying goverment but that's another story.

Being assertive and saying misrepresenting the problem is incorrect and unhelpful is being assertive, not powerless. Nor is it denying the very real issue of large numbers of women being bashed. It's just saying that it's not just women.

gaznazdiak:

15 May 2015 2:34:02pm

The British had some good results from a "Name and Shame" campaign involving people who were issued with an ASBO (Anti Social Behaviour Order). Those issued with an ASBO also had their name and photo put on posters displayed in their local are.

Instead of protecting the cowards who use violence against those weaker than themselves, we should be broadcasting their name and image for all to see just who these creatures are. A big poster with their name and photo on buses in their local area might be a good start.

Clicky The Robot:

Harry:

15 May 2015 2:48:59pm

I think that laws to do with domestic relationships are weighted against men, therefore there is more violence because of the frustrations men face. While I abhor violence, I would like to see more fairness in the justice system.

stephen jones:

15 May 2015 3:20:31pm

I think your word in the second para. 'victim' needs assessement : women who get hit are certainly nearly always the weaker and often get injured, but women, like pets and asylum seekers, can be as duplicitous and an hopeful and artful symbol of heraldry as a husband/partner who feels that they've been badly done by.

This whole notion that women are subject to victimization arised, I think, from the 'breast cancer' lobby ; that fertile symbol which takes its common bounty from being the first thing through a door ... men, being on the other side, can't help but look.

Women are receivers in a lot of ways, but that does not mean that they are victims if things do not work out in their favour, all the time.

If a man or anyone else is violent toward them then the Law will take its course - but the average girl is not like a dolphin or a puppy, where we might see that they fawn and make weak noises on occasion, and we can't help but want to.

Cobbler:

Domestic violence kills about 60-70 women a year and the government just put $30M towards combatting that, which apparently isn't nearly enough.

In 2013, prostate cancer killed over 3000 men(more than breast cancer) in Australia. The government provided $3.9M in funding for that issue.

Anmyone see any problems with that?

Now I'm not saying that domestic violence isn't bad, and it's obviously more widespread than just how many people die, but there is no evidence to suggest that this has become a massive problem recently that desperately needs solving.

Tony:

15 May 2015 3:23:15pm

Julia, I reckon your missing a very important point. I do whole heartedly agree with you: Men must not resort to violence to resolve conflict. Nobody should resort to violence to resolve conflict but men and women must equally share the load in learning how to deal better with conflict. To say that women are blameless in the conflict means we are not addressing the whole issue. I agree that step 1 is to completely rule out the use of violence but I don't believe you can actually get there without addressing the mutual responses to conflict.

Glen Laslett:

15 May 2015 3:28:11pm

Yes, certainly, men should not punch women and also obviously, men should not rape women. Violence of any kind is unacceptable. The offending article's very poorly worded references to a woman's "50% responsibility" for assaults has distracted from the underlying message.

Put in "risk management" terms, we are all exposed to the risk of violence to a greater or lesser degree both privately and publicly. The violent will always be with us just as sexual predators will always be "lurking in the shadows". To simply assert one's right to be free of an exposure to violence of any kind is obviously valid, but doesn't address the problem.

The best we can hope for is to continue to mitigate the exposure to violence, while accepting that (very sadly) domestic violence and sexual assault will always be with us. I think that the article in question really speaks to one of the forms of risk mitigation: modifying behaviour by calling it out and setting boundaries before it escalates. Other risk mitigants include strengthening and enforcing the laws, better education (of men in particular), increasing the cost of alcohol, community sanctions and interventions, and providing greater numbers of secure refuges for women.

As above, the "mad and the bad" will always be with us and we need to prevent and minimise the harm they cause to the maximum extent possible.

ABCideology:

15 May 2015 4:07:11pm

The majority of victims of male aggression are other males. Many more males go to prison or are subjected to violence than women. This is not to excuse cowardly men who hit women, merely to point out that women are not the only victims. And instead of jumping on your fruit box, Julia, perhaps you should find out why the psychologist (a female I note - any male would have been promptly stoned to death) holds the views that she expressed.

The ABC-approved ideology holds that women are always the innocent, helpless victims of discrimination and that the government must step in to address their perceived disadvantage generally, despite it being apparent that this is intellectually dishonest and that life is far more complex.

reaver:

15 May 2015 4:21:51pm

"I am particularly unclear about how a professionally trained NFL football player who outsizes his partner significantly, cannot make a different choice."So is Gay saying, and Baird agreeing, that men who are attacked by their smaller female partners should "make a different choice" by not defending themselves? So much for not "Telling women - and men who are also victims - that they are to blame for attacks and assaults on them". No, apparently men will not be blamed for being attacked, but will be blamed for not letting it continue.

ScotchCarb:

15 May 2015 4:50:13pm

I have witnessed a domestic incident between a couple not well known to me in which a simple verbal stoush - a 'whatever you reckon' and 'shut it, would you?' - escalated into the woman screaming abuse and vitriol right into her husband's face.

So this continues. He doesn't react at first, just tries to calm her down, which doesn't work. So he tries to move away from her - she follows, screaming and shouting and spitting at full volume right in his face. Short of leaving her behind at this particular social function he couldn't really get away from her.

I 100% do not think it is OK for a man to hit a woman. And yet, watching this man stand there with his wife screaming abuse aggressively into his face, I found myself amazing that he hadn't snapped throughout the twenty minute ordeal - hadn't punched, slapped or pushed her away.

And while it wouldn't have been acceptable on any level legally or morally for that man to have lashed out I would have understood if he did. Because he was being provoked.

So it isn't hard to imagine that this scenario isn't isolated - a partner in a relationship pushing the other's patience to the extreme with no regard for the consequences.

anurse:

15 May 2015 5:25:37pm

Interesting, if the husband needed to respond in kind, why would he have needed to escalate the conflict and physically assault the wife? Why not just scream and yell right back?

The very first incident of domestic violence I witnessed was a husband hitting his wife, for not having the dinner warmed (he was home late). And as she said afterwards, it was her fault, because she knew that there was a good chance she'd get bashed for not having his dinner ready and he had warned her about this many times.

Tator:

15 May 2015 4:57:40pm

Ok, Lets look at some real stats.Firstly here in SA, total reported offences against the person runs at 1400 out of every 100000, or .014% of the population per year, extrapolate that out to Australia's population means we have 322000 reports a year. For the record, offences against the person relates to all assaults and homicides.What is also a known is that the vast bulk of the population of Australia never interacts with police at an official capacity whether it be as a victim or as an offender - including traffic offences here too. This illustrates the pleasing fact that most people shouldn't be stereotyped with articles like this. With the main offenders who basically inhabit a very small subset of society we have even more categories, many are who police refer to as recidivists who commit the bulk of all offending and who resources should be concentrated on to prevent reoffending and then there are those who step over the line, who also should be dealt with but it is a difficult task to predict when an apparently normal person will turn to offending.

Adam:

15 May 2015 5:36:52pm

In my opinion men resort to domestic violence more than women because when things are not going their way violence may assist in changing the course of events in the way they would like. Women maybe less inclined to resort to violence when confronted with a similar situation because they are less likely to garner the type of change that they would like - a woman is less likely to win a physical fight with a man and therefore is less likely to initiate a physical fight. I support the authors view that men should never initiate physical violence - nobody should. At the same time neither should anybody cheat on their partner, tell lies, or try to gain advantage by deception. There must be some percentage of cases in which the non-physically violent disagreement between two individuals has jointly escalated to the point where the physically stronger individual resorts to violence. I just can't help but believe that in many situations both individuals will have the opportunity to conduct their interactions in a way that minimises disadvantage or hurt to their partner and therefore avoids coming to conflict.

I realise that there are more than just physical differences between men and women so in some parallel universe where women were generally bigger and stronger than men who would be doing the punching? Not relevant to 21st century Australia but I still wonder.

Lulu:

15 May 2015 5:45:56pm

Thanks for adding in that men can also be victims. I'm of the belief that our system for aiding vulnerable people is incredibly one sided at the moment. By acknowledging that anyone can be a victim and abuse can come from anywhere, I hope we can progress as a society and aim to improve what kinds of services and help we can give to those that desperately need it.

Domestic abuse is also about having power over another person, so we need to think of ways of preventing it rather than treating it after it happens.

2tonne:

15 May 2015 6:01:29pm

Over the last month I have been witness to unbelievable violence between two middle-aged women sharing a residence - absolutely 'psycho' behaviour. An AVO was attempted but police not particularly interested because both are women. Hopefully this should end soon as they are leaving the premises, hopefully before serious injury or worse takes place. I think many women have more aggression in them than men sometimes. And we must now take stock of the fact that as females demand and occupy frontline combat positions in military forces, women will show their capacity for ultra-violence. In future skirmishes women will fight men and women and men will have to fight women as well !! Is this acceptance of the new world order part of the problem Julia?

The woman next door:

15 May 2015 6:23:05pm

Thanks to Julia Baird for standing up for women in this situation. The truth is, that often both people have contributed to the conflict, however, it is the one who physically lashes out who is committing the offence. If a woman speaks out about it, all too often she is blamed and this is a second blow as she is not being supported. Just looking at the football incidents cited, the focus is always on the man, and rarely on the woman and the effects that are created for her. We as a society are failing women. Perhaps the focus needs to be on anger management, relationship guidance and assistance for people to leave abusive relationships. Business as usual is not an option.

Jerry Cornelius:

15 May 2015 6:24:29pm

My reading of this article is that it is about apportioning blame on women who are victims of domestic violence because they might have not have found the courage or the best way to deal with their predicament. The point is made that that it is wrong to punch a woman. It is an important point, not a slogan that will somehow miraculously end domestic violence, but an important point. Violence against women should be taboo in our society and any discussion should start from that point. Apportioning blame between the perpetrator and the victim weakens this taboo.

Much of the discussion here is about whether men in general are being blamed for violence and abuse against women and whether the conversation ignores the plight of men who are victims of abusive and violent relationships. However, many of these comments seem to broaden the scope of the article from violent relationships to abusive relationships in general. This puts many of the author's statements out of context and creates a false impression of gender bias. The author only discusses non-violent abuse in the context of it making it more difficult for women to deal with situations involving physical violence and the threat of it. If you take the narrower interpretation of the article, it is more difficult to argue against its assertions. The author assumes that by far the greatest number of domestic violence victims are women, which seems likely to me.

The seems to be a lot of interest in discussing abusive relationships from men's perspective. Perhaps someone could do us a favour and submit something to The Drum so that it can get all the attention it deserves.